Trump Wants To Make Judge Aileen Cannon The Attorney General If He Wins Election

A new document that is allegedly from the Trump Campaign shows that Donald Trump’s transition team is wanting to make Judge Aileen Cannon the next Attorney General of the United States. Cannon recently tossed out the documents case against Donald Trump, in spite of a mountain of evidence that easily proved his guilt in the matter, and now Trump is hoping to reward her with a very important role in his next administration. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains what’s happening.

Subscribe to stay connected to our stories

Support us by becoming a member on YouTube

Or Support us on Patreon

Buy Ring of Fire merch

Find us on social media!

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

For about the last week and a half, we have been told nothing from the corporate media other than the fact that holy crap, the polls are tightening it's neck and neck. Oh, you gotta tune in tomorrow to find out if it's still neck and neck, you know, kind of baiting people on with the Horse Race of American politics. And of course, that's not to say that the race is not close because it is, but according to a massive new report from the New Republic, uh, uh, written by uh, uh, uh, Greg Sargent and Michael Tomski, uh, two very well respected, very reputable writers, the race may not actually be as close as most people think, or at least probably not as close as the corporate media would like you to think, because as they point out, again, in this massive 10 page report, there's a lot of right wing pollsters flooding the market right now with data that is absolutely not reliable.

And these polls from these right wing media outlets and other right wing pollsters that have just popped up over the last couple years, their results show that Donald Trump is absolutely crushing it. And when those get factored in to the polling averages from, you know, the New York Times, the Hill Decision Desk 5 38, Nate Silver, um, they skew the results further to the right, which of course would show a tightening race. Now, they point out in their piece that all of these polling aggregates claim that, Hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We are totally taking into account all of these right wing pollsters and all of their skewed polls, but we're still counting them, right? We're still putting them in the average, we're just giving them less weight. Now, here's the thing about that giving them less weight when the data itself is already unreliable is dumb, because it still skews the polls in a way that they ought not be skewed.

The weight you should be giving them is zero by not counting them, because y'all know that their methods are not transparent. So you cannot verify any of their data, which by the way, is actually a requirement for some of these aggregators, but they're doing it anyway. So why are you counting 'em? Why are you doing this? You are letting these little fly by night Republican pollsters who for the record, got everything wrong in 2022 as Sergeant Tomski point out, and you're still giving them a seat at the table with your polling aggregates. Now, 2022, of course, is the example that they repeatedly refer to throughout this thing because in 2022 is when we saw the emergence of all these dozens of right wing pollsters putting out information showing

Republicans were gonna pick up five Senate seats. We were gonna have the red wave. Remember that all these polls from these right wing, uh, uh, outlets put, showed this, and those got counted in the aggregates. So what happened in 2022 is that those aggregates that showed Republicans running away with it, oops, didn't happen. Democrats retained control of the Senate when the aggregates showed Republicans would be picking up seats, which was wrong. And of course, the red wave 70 seats for Republicans didn't happen. A 70 seat advantage, uh, was what was initially predicted. And of course, that did shrink down. However, still, 30 to 40 seats is what they predicted. And you got 10. Oops. Have you corrected for that? Aggregates? Probably not. Because you swore in 2022, just like you swore in 2020, just like you swore in 2016, your methods are infallible. We have accounted for this.